Google on Wednesday is expected to announce a new online music store that will let users buy and store songs online and listen to them on multiple devices, in direct competition with Apple's iTunes.

Citing people familiar with the matter, Bloomberg has reported that Google has secured the necessary licenses from Sony, Universal and EMI for its soon-to-launch music store. But the search giant has not yet reached an agreement with Warner Music Group "because of pricing and piracy concerns."

Google's anticipated jump into the online music sales business comes more than 8 years after Apple launched its own iTunes Music Store in late April of 2003. That time has given Apple a huge head start, with the company announcing in June that more than 15 billion total songs have been downloaded.

The report said that Google is also looking to obtain rights for users of its social networking service, Google+, to share music with one another. The company declined to comment.

Earlier this year, the Google Music beta was launched, though it didn't include any actual music sales. The company instead sidestepped licensing agreements and allows users to upload and stream their own tracks from a digital online locker.

Apple instead took a different approach, and obtained licenses to allow users to re-download any music they have purchased through iTunes again on other devices with its iTunes in the Cloud service. The newly launched iTunes Match service even goes one step further, allowing users to match their personal collection of songs, including ones obtained from sources outside of the iTunes Music Store, and re-download those tracks to other devices.

I have the strangest feeling I've seen this already at least two distinct other times ... must be getting old

The problem is that Google's approach to anyone's intellectual property but their own is "we want to copy it without permission and without paying royalties". Look at what they tried to do with books before they were stopped.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Amazon is already doing this very thing for non-Apple devices. How does Google hope to convince people to choose them over Amazon? Just sounds like another "me too" decision made by Google execs. How did a company known for pioneering web search and web advertising as we know it to just trying to copy everybody else's ideas?

Please Apple:
1) Build the best search engine in the world.
2) License out iOS for free. People are intelligent enough to understand that if you want the full Apple experience they will buy Apple iOS devices.

Have Google done one single thing on their own?
Every single service they provide existed before Google started with them.

AdBlock + Ghostery means you never see ads on YouTube. Not even in-video ads nor the ones preceding videos.

I've never seen the latter. Ever. I only heard that they exist from other people complaining about them. Never have I seen a single ad on YouTube.

Thanks I'll check that out, but my point was Apple entering Google's space even more ...I wasn't being totally serious. In truth I make money from YouTube by posting commercial projects I've done. I allow myself a certain amount of hypocrisy each month

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Please Apple:
1) Build the best search engine in the world.
2) License out iOS for free. People are intelligent enough to understand that if you want the full Apple experience they will buy Apple iOS devices.

Number two is just plain wrong as the cloning era proved true, you should never try to directly partner with a competitor in the fashion that you propose unless you are forced to. It never works out well. Look at Apple's problems with Samsung for example - largely they exist due to the fact that Apple relies on their IP to some degree. The last thing you want to do is create more reliance.

You simply do not license out and sell your own property like that - you end up shooting yourself in the foot when you assume that consumers will know the difference.

I understand that there are some people who actively like using Google products (outside of their search site), ie they go out of their way to use Google product because of their perception of the quality. Maybe these are the people who would want to use this service over iTunes or Amazon.

The problem is that Google's approach to anyone's intellectual property but their own is "we want to copy it without permission and without paying royalties". Look at what they tried to do with books before they were stopped.

In this case they're really getting licenses from the music companies. At least give them cred for doing it the "proper" way.

The problem is that Google's approach to anyone's intellectual property but their own is "we want to copy it without permission and without paying royalties". Look at what they tried to do with books before they were stopped.

I think these kinds of statements about copyright are asinine and basically just a mouthing of what the media corporations want you to believe.

I absolutely hate Google and try to avoid all their lousy products, but ...

"what they tried to do with books before they were stopped." ...

would have been a great boon to the human race and the only one really hurt would be the media corporations. The actual creators of the works are pretty much out of the loop in both scenarios (Google's way or the Media Corp.'s way).

Modern copyright law has basically *nothing* to do with protecting the rights of the creators. It focusses almost entirely on the rights of media distribution companies. It's pretty much the opposite of what would be good for the consumers or the creators. It protects the middle men, the hucksters, and the hoarders of other people's IP.

I think these kinds of statements about copyright are asinine and basically just a mouthing of what the media corporations want you to believe.

I absolutely hate Google and try to avoid all their lousy products, but ...

"what they tried to do with books before they were stopped." ...

would have been a great boon to the human race and the only one really hurt would be the media corporations. The actual creators of the works are pretty much out of the loop in both scenarios (Google's way or the Media Corp.'s way).

Modern copyright law has basically *nothing* to do with protecting the rights of the creators. It focusses almost entirely on the rights of media distribution companies. It's pretty much the opposite of what would be good for the consumers or the creators. It protects the middle men, the hucksters, and the hoarders of other people's IP.

I don't like Google, but I can understand that Android users just don't have the kind of service provided by Apple via iTunes for iOS and iPod devices.

This is for hard-core Android-lovers/Apple-haters who won't ever buy an Apple product.

It's not the end of the world, as I can't see Apple users suddenly switching to Android just to get their tunes off of Google's service even if Google subsidises the cost of each track -- at the end of the day Google still exists to only want your personal info and ad-generated revenue.

If this thing starts losing money, Google may not have enough money in the bank to pay for Motorola

I think these kinds of statements about copyright are asinine and basically just a mouthing of what the media corporations want you to believe.

I absolutely hate Google and try to avoid all their lousy products, but ...

"what they tried to do with books before they were stopped." ...

would have been a great boon to the human race and the only one really hurt would be the media corporations. The actual creators of the works are pretty much out of the loop in both scenarios (Google's way or the Media Corp.'s way).

Modern copyright law has basically *nothing* to do with protecting the rights of the creators. It focusses almost entirely on the rights of media distribution companies. It's pretty much the opposite of what would be good for the consumers or the creators. It protects the middle men, the hucksters, and the hoarders of other people's IP.

That is, of course, BS.

Lots of people make their livings off of work that they've created. Why in the world should Google be able to copy and distribute that work without permission or payment? You're far wrong when you say that the actual creators of work are out of the loop in the current system. The author is very much part of the loop (and I've created and sold several books, btw, so I'm familiar with the system). And if the author doesn't like the current system, there are plenty of ways to publish and sell your own work.

Google's attempt to use all copyrighted work without permission was nothing but outright theft. Trying to rationalize it the way you are is foolish.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13